■Xf7 



E 668 
.147 
Copy 1 



SPEECH 



HON. EBON C. EVGERSOLL. 

OF ILLINOIS, 



ON 



THE GOVERNMENT OF INSURRECTIONARY STATES; 



DELIVERED 



IN THE HOUSE OF KEPKESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 7, 1867. 






WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 

1867. 



> 



West. Eee. Hist. Boo. 



! 



■ 



GOVERNMENT OF INSURRECTIONARY STATES. 



^ The Houso resumed the consideration of the follow- 

ing bill: 

Whereas the pretended State governments of the 
late so-called confederate States of Virginia, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Ala- 
bama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas were 
set up without the authority of Congress and without 
the sanction of the people ; and whereas said pre- 
tended governments afford no adequate protection 
for life or property, but countenance and encourage 
lawlessness and crime; and whereas it is necessary 
that peace and good order should be enforced in said 
so-called States until loyal and republican State 
governments can be legally established : Therefore, 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 
tives of the United States of America in Congress assem- 
bled, That said so-called States shall be divided into 
military districts and made subject to the military 
authority of the United States as hereinafter pre- 
scribed; and for that purpose Virginia shall consti- 
tute the first district. North Carolina and South Car- 
olina the second district, Georgia, Alabama, and 
Florida the third district, Mississippi and Arkansas 
the fourth district, and Louisiana and Texas the fifth 
district. 

Sec. 2. Andbe it further enacted. That it shall be the 
duty of the General of the Army to assign to the com- 
mand of each of said districts an officer of the regu- 
lar Army, not below the rank of brigadier general 
and to detail a sufficient military force to enable 
such officer to perform his duties and enforce his 
authority within the district to which he is assigned. 

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the 
duty of each officer assigned as aforesaid to protect 
all persons in their rights of person and property, to 
suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence, and to 
punish or cause to be punished all disturbers of the 
public peace and criminals, and to this end he may 
allow civil tribunals to take jurisdiction of and to try 
offenders, or, when in his judgment it may be neces- 
sary for the trial of offenders, ho shall have power to 
organize military commissions or tribunals for that 
purpose, anything in the constitution and laws of the 
so-called States to the contrary notwithstanding, and 
all legislative or judicial proceedings, or processes to 
prevent or control the proceedings of said military 
tribunals, and all interference by said pretended 
State governments with the exercise of military au- 
thority under this act shall be void and of no effect. 



Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That courts and 
judicial officers of the United States shall not issue 
writs of habeas corpus in behalf of persons in military 
custody unless some commissioned officer on duty in 
the district wherein the person is detained shall in- 
dorse upon said petition a statement certifying upon 
honor that he has knowledge or information as to the 
cause and circumstances of the alleged detention, and 
that hcbelievesthesameto be wrongful; and further, 
that he believes that the indorsed petition is preferred 
in good faith, and in furtherance of justice and not to 
hinder or delay the punishment of erime. All per- 
sons put under military arrest by virtue of this act 
shall be tried without unnecessary delay, and no 
cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted. 

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted. That no sentence 
of any military commission or tribunal hereby au- 
thorized, affecting the life or liberty of any person, 
shall be executed until it is approved by the officer 
in command of the district, and tho laws and regula- 
tions for the government of the Army shall not be 
affected by this act, except in so far as they conflict 
with its provisions. 

Mr. INGERSOLL said : 

Mr. Speaker : In the view of this case which 
I shall present I shall discuss the propositions 
of the gentlemen who have preceded me, who 
claim that the States have never lost their 
status in the Union, and that as States within 
the Union they have all their original rights, 
among which is the right of representation in 
Congress. 

I shall also discuss the proposition advanced 
by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Bingham,] 
that they are still States, but with certain 
limitations and qualifications. 

Now, sir, I hold that there are but two sides 
to this question, that they are either States for 
all purposes and the equals of the other States, 
or else they are no States at all ; I mean polit- 
ical States known to the Constitution. There 



are geographical States and political States. 
The southern States lately in rebellion have 
not changed their geographical character by 
the rebellion in which they engaged, but their 
] olitic'al character only, and they are no longer 
States of this Union within the meaning of 

Constitution. What constitutes a State? 
I answer an organized community governed by 
law and having certain geographical limits. A 
State under the Constitution must not only be 
an organized community governed by law and 
Laving certain geographical limits, but it must, 

1'liiion to this, be recognized as a State of 
the Union by the law-making power of the 
General Government 

Now, sir, as regards the law, the logic, or 
the facts of this question, I deny that there is 
any middle ground to occupy. They are cither 

es for all purposes or they are not States 
for any purposes under our Government. All 
the domain belonging to the United States or 
within its jurisdiction assumes one of two 
characters, namely, that of a State or that 
of a Territory. No other condition was ever 
known- I hold that the rebel States by rebel- 
1. hi destroyed all civil government within their 
'Hiaries, and destroyed their political organ- 
izations known to the Constitution of the Uni- 
1 States, and consequently they ceased to 
be States of this Union; and by the operation 
of the act of secession, culminating in armed 
rebellion, they became the territory of the Uni- 

States, when we by our successes on the 
battle-fi< Id made a conquest of their armies. 

ntiemen in the argument of this question 

. to fQrget the history of tin: rebellion. 

m to forget that the rebellion organ? 
facta government; that the S: 

■ Mi repudiated bya solemn 

aei hi ooavention the art by which they rating 

tattoo of tin- i 'iiit<->l State*) thereby 

tning members of the Federal Govern- 

Gentlemen seem t" forget that they 

• .ii,H '1 ;i government which from the trerj aer 

i ptized by our 

ament a a ./. y. /.■/.< government. By 

laws of war ami by all international 'aw 

... re bound to reoogniae them as abolliger' 

powefi a., a ■•'. /./ / < government! v>V 

%\ ,. Not only u> re 

i by us, hut by mosl of the i io- 



dized Powers of the world as a de facto gov- 
ernment, authorized to issue letters of marque 
and reprisal, to make captures on the high seas, 
and one whose flag protected those sailing 
under it. But for that recognition the charac- 
ter of their cruisers would have been changed 
to that of piratical crafts. They were expressly 
recognized as a de facto t government by the 
Roman Government in an official communica- 
tion addressed " to the President of the con- 
federate States of America." As evidence 
of like recognition by our Government, I refer 
to an act of Congress, passed in the early part 
of the rebellion, which interdicted all commer- 
cial intercourse between the inhabitants of the 
United States and the inhabitants of the so- * 
called confederate States. That act made no r 
exception on account of the loyalty of any per- 
son residing in the confederate States. It re- 
garded them all as public enemies. It would 
have been as much a violation of that act for one 
of our people to have had a commercial transac- 
tion with a loyal as with a disloyal person within 
the jurisdiction of the confederate government. 
This was an exercise of one of the war powers 
of the Government. No express authority for 
this act is found in the Constitution. The Con- 
stitution gives to Congress the power to "reg- 
ulate commerce among the several States," 
but not to interdict it. 

Now, sir, having said this much by way of 
premise, let me call attention to the position 
assumed by the gentleman from^Ohio, [Mr. 
Finck.] He seemed to view it as a matter of 
surprise that Congress should attempt to con- 
trol tin ■la; i' rebel States as proposed in this bill, 

and he challenged history to produce a single- 

instance where a Government had made a con- 

-1' its own territory. Assuming it to be 

triir thai a < lovernraent cannot make a conquest 

of its own territory, beheld that as a necessary 
consequence Congress possessed no constitu- 
tional power to pass the hill under discussion. ^ % 

Now, sir, let me answer the gentleman; is 

it fair to assume that because history furnishes 
DO example of a nation making a conquest of 
ii territory that it is impossible under 
tiny eitvuiii ■ <: i\ nation ever to make 

such conquest '.' I say it is not. 

I ohaileage him to produce from the pages 

of history the record of any such rebellion as 



_» — 



■ 



that we have suppressed. Under what civil- 
ized Government was there ever a rebellion 
that rose to the power and the dignity of a 
de facto government? Was there ever a re- 
bellion that made such head against the estab- 
lished Government as to create a new Govern- 
ment, occupying and controlling absolutely 
one third of the territory of the entire coun- 
try? Was there ever before a rebellion that 
was recognized as a belligerent power by the 
civilized Governments of the world? Never, 
sir. You will search history in vain to pro- 
duce such an illustration. There never has 
been before this in any country a rebellion 
which was recognized as a de facto govern- 
ment by the Government it was contending 
against, or recognized by the civilized govern- 
ments of the world as entitled to belligerent 
rights. But in this case the recognition was 
complete at home and abroad. The rebel gov- 
ernment was recognized as a de facto govern- 
ment, entitled to belligerent rights and pro- 
tected in those rights under the law of nations. 
Mr. Speaker, let me call your attention and 
the attention of the House to this question : 
whether the Government of the United States 
did make a conquest of the confederacy, and 
whether it did acquire the rights of a conqueror 
over the vanquished rebel power. Let it be 
remembered that the rebellion, or the confed- 
erate government, first made a conquest of a 
portion of the original territory of the United 
States, and erected upon it a government and 
maintained that government, exercising juris- 
diction over the territory thus acquired for 
five years, and thus became to all intents 
and purposes a foreign Government, making 
war upon the Government of the United 
States, but by the success of our arms we made 
a conquest of the confederate government, 
made a conquest of its people and its territory 
after years of the most sanguinary and desolat- 
ing war of modern times, and by international 
law we have a right to exercise over this con- 
quered belligerent power, over this territory 
wrested by the power of arms from this con- 
federate government, all the rights pertaining 
to the conqueror, one of which is to control the 
territory thus conquered, the people thus sub- 
jugated by military power. Hence arises our 
right to dispose of the property, real and 



personal, of the rebel government as well as to 
exercise control over its people. 

I hold, sir, that in the prosecution of the war 
against the rebellion the laws of war in the main 
controlled us, and not alone the written law. 
Where did you get the power to declare green- 
backs a legal tender? Where did you get the 
power to pass a confiscation law? Where did 
you get the power to do many of the acts neces- 
sary for the preservation of the Government 
in the prosecution of the war against the rebel- 
lion? Did you rely solely upon the letter of 
the Constitution for the power, or did you rely 
upon the inherent right of the Government to 
preserve its own life? 

I hold, sir, that the Government of the 
United States possesses as much inherent power 
and may exercise any power necessary to self- 
preservation that any Government on earth 
can exercise. We are as powerful in war, and 
may in war legally and rightfully do what the 
Czar of Russia could do, what the Emperor of 
France could do, or any other monarchical 
Government. We possess the inherent right 
of self-defense, and under that right we may 
do any act recognized under the laws of war 
necessary to self-preservation. 

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. The gen- 
tleman will allow me to ask $iim a question, 
and I propose to take him back to the "green- 
back " question. I want to know whether the 
gentleman thinks the "greenbacks" were de- 
clared legal tender in the exercise of any war 
power? Does he admit there was no constitu- 
tional right to declare them a legal tender ? 

Mr. 1NGERSOLL. I hold, if there had 
been no war, no exigency in the affairs of the 
Government rendering it necessary, it would 
have been unconstitutional. I may be wrong, 
but this is my opinion. I find no power con- 
ferred on Congress in the Constitution relating 
to money except the power "to coin money 
and to regulate the value thereof;" and I do 
not believe the Congress of the United States in 
ordinary and peaceful times has the right to 
make paper money a legal tender. To make 
" greenbacks" is not in my judgment to "coin 
money." But it did have the right to make 
" greenbacks" a legal tender, in order to pre- 
serve the Government from destruction and 
for the successful prosecution of the war. 



6 



Mr. LE BLOND. Will the gentleman allow 
me to ask him a question ? 

Mr. INGERSOLL. I cannot yield now. I 
cannot yield to have immaterial issues brought 
in here ; but if I had the time I would yield 
with pleasure for any pertinent question. 

1 want some gentleman here to tell me the 
difference between a conquest of the rebel 
- tea by the war power of the Government 
and a conquest of Canada supposing we had 
had a war with Great Britain. Had we been 
in war with Great Britain instead of the south- 
ern confederacy, and had we made a conquest 
of the Canadas, would we have the right under 
the law of nations to establish military Gov- 
ernments there? I answer most assuredly. 
Would we be compelled to withdraw the mil- 
itary forces as soon as they had surrendered? 
By no means. We would continue our mil- 
itary forces in the Canadas until peace had 
been declared and until the new order of 
things should be adjusted according to the 
spirit of our institutions and in harmony with 
our Constitution. 

Now, sir, let us look into history and see if 
we cannot get some light on this subject. It is 
but a few years since we invaded Mexican soil. 
After many sanguinary contests our armies 
marched victoriously to the capital of that 
country. We made a conquest of their whole 
territory. Now, on the theory of gentlemen 
here who oppose this bill, the Mexican people 
should have protested, as the people of the 
I Stah a have protested, against the occu- 
pation of their territory by the military forces, 
on the ground thai they had surrendered their 
and were willing to yield to the situation. 
What are the facts concerning the occupation 
of Mexico'.' We held it until the treaty of 
. .! ape Hidalgo was agreed upon, and we 
maintained our military force there until we 

bod Secured all the objeel of tic war. After 

the ratification of the treaty the troops 
withdrawn, hut not till then. 

;■■ the States lately in rebellion 

there lia^ been no ratification of a treaty of 

'I here ha been no pi ace 6V claw l. 

Had ' D declared what would ha\c 

been the effect 7 Tbi n bellioo would 

bare been restored to the Union* The E&epre- 

.'ive , from tic .aid have been 



admitted into Congress on the same terms as 
Representatives from the loyal States. That 
would be the highest evidence of the restora- 
tion of those States to the Union. The admis- 
sion of their Representatives to seats here 
would itself be the most satisfactory evidence 
that peace had been restored and the highest 
evidence of the restoration of those States to 
all their rights under the Constitution. 

We have had no declaration of peace, and 
we have had no peace in fact. We conquered 
the rebellion. We now have possession of 
their territory as conquerors, and when did we 
cease to have the character of conquerors? 
When did we lay aside that character ? Never. 
We have suspended active hostilities, but we 
have never given up our occupation of that 
country by the military forces. To be sure 
we have not lately controlled it to any consid- 
erable extent by military authority, but we 
have not given up military occupation of those 
so-called States ; neither do we intend to until 
the rights of the enfranchised and loyal people 
of such States shall be secured and the peace 
and safety of the Republic shall be no longer 
endangered by disloyal rule. 

Congress, under the Constitution, has power 
"to make rules and regulations concerning 
captures on land and water." Now, sir, dur- 
ing the progress of the war, under the rules 
and regulations of the Army as prescribed by 
acts of Congress, which rules and regulations 
were changed from time to time, our forces 
captured property id' all description's, personal 
and real, and disposed of the same, putting 
the proceeds into the Treasury of the United 
States. We captured their officers and soldiers 
and held them as prisoners of war. We cap- 
tured State alter Slate lYoin the confederate 
government, and at last we captured all its 
Stales; BO that when the rebel Ha:,' went down 
we had captured as trophic^ of the war (he entire 

rebel confederacy, thus making a conquest of 
that goyernmenl and a conquest of its people 

and of its territory. The gentleman from 

cky v. ho Last ail. d I hi l Eouse [ Mr. 
Hi i i desired some reference to the clause of 

the Constitution which gives us authority tO 

ate and control the southern Suites lately 
in rebellion. I point him to thai clause which 

declares that"* hall have power to 



make rules and regulations concerning cap- 
tures on land and water." But some gentle- 
men urge that this clause in the Constitution 
applies only to personal property. I answer 
that the Constitution makes no distinction as 
to the character of the property, and the reason- 
able inference is that it includes everything 
which is the legitimate subject of capture. We 
capture towns, cities, and States, as well as 
personal property, and under this clause in the 
Constitution Congress has a right to make 
rules and regulations concerning such captures, 
and we have the right to dispose of the terri- 
tory thus captured from the confederacy by 
sale, if we desire to, or in any other manner. It 
is absolutely at the disposal of the conqueror. 
Under the law it belongs to the conqueror, and 
the conqueror necessarily has the right to dis- 
pose of that which belongs to him in any man- 
ner he may think best. 

"We propose by this bill to control the subju- 
gated people in this conquered territory by the 
military power temporarily until such* times as 
loyal civil government can be established there 
and maintained without the aid of the military 
power. But in order to find authority in Con- 
gress to pass this bill I am not compelled to 
go so far with the argument based upon this 
^ clause of the Constitution as to even inquire 
whether it authorizes any disposition to be 
made of the territory captured or wrested from 
the confederate government. This clause in 
the Constitution relates to "captures," and 
it cannot be denied but that we have authority 
to make rules and regulations concerning such 
captures. This bill only proposes to regulate 
the captured rebels ; it does not interfere with 
property. But I am not driven to rest the right 
of Congress to pass this bill upon this clause 
alone. I call the attention of the House to 
another clause of the Constitution. It is this : 

" The Congress shall have power to dispose of and 
make all needful rules and regulations respecting the 
• territory or other property belonging to the United 
States." 

The late rebel States are to all intents and 
purposes as much territories of the United 
States, subject to the exclusive control of Con- 
gress, as are the Territories of Utah, New 
Mexico, Montana, or any other Territory be- 
longing to the Government. Congress has not 



yet vested the people of these so-called States 
with authority to establish local governments, 
but has so far retained the right to exercise all 
legislative authority for them, and in the exer- 
cise of that authority we propose to establish 
temporarily military governments in these so- 
called States for the security of life, liberty, and 
property. This is not, strictly speaking, a meas- 
ure of reconstruction, but a measure looking 
simply to the enforcement of order. It seems 
to me clear, then, that, not only under the laws 
of war and under the law of nations, but 
under the express authority of the Constitution 
itself, Congress possesses the rightful authority 
to establish military governments, as proposed 
by the bill under consideration. 

And here I ask the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Bingham] this question: if these late 
rebel States are States in the Union, are they 
not of right entitled to a vote upon any resolu- 
tion proposing an amendment to the Constitu- 
tion? I believe the gentleman himself holds 
that the constitutional amendment when rat- 
ified by three fourths of the adhering loyal 
States will be binding. 

Mr. BINGHAM. If the gentleman will 
permit me, I will save him all trouble on that 
point. I stated that no State can exercise the 
local functions of a State without having com- 
plied with the conditions-precedent set out in 
the Constitution of the United States, which I 
recited ; and these States having broken down 
their legal State governments have ceased 
to be capable of exercising these functions. 
While, therefore, they do remain States for 
Federal purposes, they have no voice in the 
matter. 

Mr. INGERSOLL. Certainly, for local 
State purposes they have no existence. 

Mr. BINGHAM. Nor for political purposes. 

Mr. INGERSOLL. Well, sir, if that is 
true they are not States enough to "hurt." 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman fqrgets 
one thing : unless they do remain States, with 
the boundaries of States according to the 
original law of the State, where is the bound- 
ary of this jurisdiction that touches life and 
property by this bill? I maintain that every 
thing remains intact, as though no rebellion 
had happened as to the Federal Government. 



8 



Unless they are held to be States for Federal 
purposes there must be a general jail delivery. 

Mr. INGERSOLL. This in my judgment 
does not necessarily follow ; but as the propo- 
sition of the gentleman is all on our side I do 
not propose to combat it. They are States for 
our purposes, but not for their own, [laughter;] 
bo he says. That they are States in the legal 
sense of the term I deny ; they are Territories, 
nothing more, and as such are subject to the 
control of Congress, the law-making power of 
the Government. 

But this question I have no desire to debate 
further with the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. 
Bingham,] for he lays down the proposition 
that these are States for Federal purposes, and 
that it is at our option whether we will recog- 
nize them or not as States as regards local 
legislation or State government. Now, I do 
not know how I could go further than that. 
Who could go further ? When a State govern- 
ment destroys its civil and political organiza- 
tion surely it ceases to be a State. But let this 
pass. 

The President of the United States, in his 
proclamation to Governor Holden, declared 
that the State of North Carolina by the rebel- 
lion had become "deprived of all civil gov- 
ernment," and by just inference had ceased to 
be B State. It is by and through its political 
organization that a State lives, moves, and has 
a being. When the State government becomes 
aefunel thete is nothing Left but a dead hulk. 
Thus much I have said in regard to the status 
of . these so-called States, and I think I have 
■ ! the fact to the satisfaction of rea» 
ble and intelligent men that they are but 
territories of the United states, and subject 

rightfully to the exclusive control of Congress. 

And now, sir, a few words with regard to this 

particular bill. Whether it be the wisest and 

measure that can lie conceived I will not 
. : what will be the effect of it 

should it ben le & law I will not attempt to 

describe; what hindrances will be thrown in 
the way of its operation by the President of the 
United Btate 1 can hardly imagine; what 
power be may to delay, hinder, and 

trammel the operations of the law I can bardly 
Hut before I go farther upon this 
point, I '1 ! your attention to the fed 



that this is a measure looking to the pacifica- 
tion of the rebel States and not to their recon- 
struction. Now, suppose we lay aside, for the 
moment, the "rebel States" and talk about 
the reconstruction of the people of those States. 
The people, not the States, have been making 
war upon our Government. Then let us deal 
with the people, and when we have succeeded 
in reconstructing them, the States, it may then 
be said, are reconstructed. Whenever you can 
throw around the loyal people of the southern 
States the protection of law, enforced, if needs 
be, by military power, you will form a nucleus 
around which we can rally all the Union senti- 
ment of this now suffering and outraged people, 
and it will grow and expand into a power that + 
will reconstruct those territories upon a loyal ; 
basis and restore them to the Union regener- 
ated and redeemed from treason. 

But, sir, I will not dwell upon this subject. 
The labor of the last Congress and of this 
Congress, so far in the work of reconstruction, 
has been labor lost. What real progress has 
been made? The President has tried for nearly 
two years his policy, and Congress has at- 
tempted from time to time to put in operation 
some plan of reconstruction, but by reason of 
the opposition of the President and his friends 
they have all been defeated. The President's 
policy has not proved to be a success. It is a 
miserable failure. The joint Committee on 
Reconstruction have reported this bill to the 
House and recommend its passage, and I am 
sure that no member need hesitate to vote for 
it, for if it become alaw it cannot make matters 
worse than they nnw are, and it may make them 
better. Something should be done, and done 
at once. The condition of things there has 
been growing worse from day tO day since the 
day of their surrender. Crime is holding a 
high carnival there: industry is in a great meas- 
ure paralyzed ; the Congress is repudiated and 

denounced as BO unconstitutional body, and 

the laws ofCongressare continually pronounced 

unconstitutional by the courts of these States, 
and all that stands in the way of the restoration 

of the rebel aristocracy to power is crushed out 
by violence or by the decision of their courts. 
Gentlemen object to this bill because it pro- 

to place the people of those States under 
military authority; but we must remember that 



9 



these are rugged times, and that to remedy the 
state of things that exist rugged measures must 
be resorted to. 

The resolution proposing an amendment to 
the Constitution was submitted to them in good 
faith in the hope that it might be ratified and 
form an equitable basis for the reconstruction 
of those States. But so far as those States 
have acted upon it they have rejected it. 

The exercise of civil power under the Pres- 
ident's policy has been tried and proved un- 
availing. Shall this condition of things last 
always, or shall we try some more stringent 
measure in the hope that it will result in the 
restoration of harmony and of peace? 

This bill may not, possibly, effect the object 
desired, but it will have this effect if no other : 
it will topple over these spurious governments 
set up by the power of presidential usurpation ; 
it will teach those people that they must look 
to Congress and not to the President for the 
terms of peace and reunion. It will teach the 
President that the law-making power does not 
intend to yield its right to pass upon the valid- 
ity of any government that may be formed in 
these States ; it will inform him that he is not 
the law-making power of the government, but 
simply the Executive to execute the will of the 
loyal people as expressed by their Represent- 
atives in Congress. 

But more than this I will not say it will ac- 
complish, for I am satisfied that the President 
will do all in his power to defeat the object 
sought to be attained in this bill. Judging 
from what he has done in the past I have a 
right to anticipate his action in the future. 

This bill purposely withholds from the Pres- 
ident the power, to assign the generals who are 
to command the various districts, and vests that 
power in General Grant. This is one of the 
best features in the bill. The loyal people 
' know that they can trust General Grant. He 
has been weighed in the balance and not found 
wanting. This in itself guaranties a fearless, 
honest, and faithful execution of the powers 
contained in the bill. 

I have no fear in vesting this power in the 
General of our armies, for I believe he will 
exercise it wisely, prudently, and firmly, as he 
has exereised all the other powers that have 
been conferred upon him, and he will appoint 



judicious and able generals to command these 
districts. In judging of the fitness, capacity, 
and qualifications of an officer he has probably 
no superior in the world. 

But I am met by the objection that the Pres- 
ident is Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and 
that he may rescind any order that General 
Grant may make under the provisions of this 
bill. I reply that the President by virtue of 
his being Commander-in-Chief of the armies 
may rescind any order that the General in his 
discretion may make. 

The President is made by the Constitution 
for the time he exercises the functions of that 
office the superior officer of General Grant, 
and as such superior officer he may possess the 
power to supervise, change, or rescind an order 
of the General, but the question is, will he 
have the temerity to do it in the face of and 
in violation of this law ? If this bill becomes 
a law it is not assuming too much to say that 
General Grant will promulgate the necessary 
orders to carry it into execution. He will as- 
sign the various generals selected by himself to 
the command of these several districts. I am 
asked in case he does, what is there to prevent the 
President from rescinding such orders at once? 
I answer, perhaps nothing except a wholesome 
fear as to the consequences of the act. As a 
mere question of power I admit that the Pres- 
ident would have the power to rescind any 
order which General Grant might make in as- 
signing generals under this bill to their various 
commands. But I ask again, will he dare to 
assume the responsibility of interfering in such 
manner? I am asked again, if the President 
has the power to rescind orders of General 
Grant why pass this bill ? I respond, pass 
the bill and place the responsibility of any in- 
terference in its operations with the President. 

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. Will the 
gentleman allow me to ask him a question? 

Mr. INGERSOLL. I will. 

Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania. As this 
bill was originally drawn up I understand that 
it contained the words "by the President of 
the United States." Can the gentleman tell 
why these words were stricken out and the 
words "by the General of the Army" inserted 
in their stead? 

Mr. INGERSOLL. I can give you myopin- 



10 



ion if you desire it, and it is this : that the 
change was made because we fear to trust the 
President with this power, for I do not believe 
if the duty of assigning these generals to the 
command of the proposed district was left to 
the President that he would appoint such gen- 
erals as Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, Howard, 
or Eleintzelman, but that he would appoint 
such generals, if he could find them, who 
would be willing to yield a ready and pliant 
subserviency to his wishes and to promote his 
interests and his policy. We are not without 
instruction upon this point. "To be fore- 
warned is to be forearmed." 

It is time it was settled who is master of the 
question of reconstruction of the rebel States, 
the President or Congress. We have been 
deceived once by the President. That was his 
fault. If we allow him to deceive us again it 
will be our fault. Now we know him ; then 
we did not 

Mr. HISE. If the gentleman will allow me 
a moment, I desire to ask him a question. 

Mr. INGERSOLL. Certainly. 

Mr. HISE. If you are afraid to trust the 
dent with the power you have proposed 
to be conferred by this bill upon the General 
of the armies, and you are still of the opinion 
the President has the lawful authority under 
the Constitution of the United States to re- 
scind General Grant's orders and take the 
whole control of the matter in his own hands, 
then why pass this bill at all? 

Mr. JM.ERSOLL. The President, under 
the form of this bill, might still have the con- 
stitutional authority to rescind the order of the 
General in a ugning the generals to their 
is commands) yet he would not have the 
authority to "take the whole 
control of tin- matter into his own hands." 
I answer further that I would pass this bill 
because I believe it is a measure demanded by 

the COndil OB of things in the Smith: and in 

tin.- second place, 1 doubl whether the P 
dent has the pluck to rescind whatever orders 
may be made by the Gi oeral under this bill; 
and further, if the Presidenl Bhould corruptly 
■ i- of the Gem ral or reft 
itc the law it would form a good ground 
for his impeaohment G tin' right 

to look behind the mere act of the Pre ident, 



although the act in itself might be warranted 
by the Constitution, and to inquire into the 
purposes of the President for doing it. The 
President has no right to do an act lawful in 
itself for corrupt ends ; so that it would bring 
the question before Congress for decision 
whether the President, in rescinding the order 
of the General, acted corruptly or not, and 
if so found it would be good ground for his 
impeachment. 

Mr. STROUSE. That will be the only 
ground you will ever have. 

Mr. INGERSOLL. I do not know that I 
wish I did. And here I will say that I be- 
lieve we might as well stop the considera- 
tion of the question of the reconstruction of 
the southern States or of the southern people, 
and turn our attention to the reconstruction of 
the President. I say this in no offensive sense, 
and I may be permitted to add that if we have 
wisdom and sagacity enough to frame laws 
which will keep him within the exercise of the 
legitimate powers which are conferred upon 
him by the Constitution, which will keep him 
within the pale of loyal and patriotic action, I 
am not certain but we will be serving our 
country with more honor and more credit, and 
with the hope of better results than in endeav- 
oring to reconstruct the rebel States while the 
President is thrusting so many obstacles in our 
way. I cannot now say what law should be 
passed to hedge in and control the President; 
but any law that could be constitutionally 
passed that would have that effect I would 
most gladly vote for. 

1 n my opinion the President has broken loose 
from his moorings under the Constitution, and 
I feel it incumbent upon me, as one of the 
Representatives of the people, to do everything 
in my power to bring him back. I say this out 
of no feeling of disrespect to the President. I 
conscientiously believe that on these great vital . 
questions he is wrong. I will not now say he 
is intentionally wrong, but the effect of his acts • 
UpOO the country are just the same without 
ace to his intentions. Bui htusdoonr 
duty without anticipating what the action of 
the President may be. I advocate the passage 
of this bill out of no feeling of rindictivenera 
toward the people of the late confederacy. I 
. ■■ that it will result in their y^ood; that it 



11 



will promote aud perhaps secure the restoration 
of law and order, the necessary foundation of 
all well-organized society. I do not believe 
the officers selected by General Grant would 
abuse the powers reposed in them, but I do 
believe that they would lend the aid of the 
military power of the Government for the res- 
toration of civil authority. 

The fact that I fear the President, stimulated 
as he will be by those who cluster around him, 
will interfere with the military execution of 
this bill will not deter me from voting for it. 
The President will be held responsible for his 
action by the people and by Congress, who are 
the direct representatives of the people and 
charged with the execution of their will, sub- 
ject only to the Constitution. It may be per- 
tinent to inquire here how long this war forced 
upon Congress by the President shall continue ; 
how much longer shall we submit to it. It 
might be well for Congress to settle the ques- 
tion now whether we are to continue under the 
present condition of things for and during the 
remainder of the term of the President, which 
expires on the 4th of March, 18G9, or whether 
the President has been guilty of any crime or 
misdemeanor for which he deserves to be im- 
peached or removed from his high office, and 
thus remove this paramount obstruction which 
stands in the way of the reconstruction by Con- 
gress of the late rebel States. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Will the gentleman yield 
to me for a moment? 

Mr. INGERSOLL. For what purpose ? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. To ask a question.' 

Mr. INGERSOLL. I will. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. As the gentleman con- 
cedes that the President, by the Constitution, 
is Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, 
I desire to know whether the President would 
not have the power to revoke any order made 
by any officer of the Army under this bill ? 

Mr. INGERSOLL. So far as the ques- 
tion of power is concerned I have conceded 
that. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. I mean constitutional 
power. 

Mr. INGERSOLL. Well, for the sake of 
argument I will concede that also. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. I wish to ask further 
whether it would be a ground for impeachment 



if he exercised that power in a constitutional 
way? 

Mr. INGERSOLL. I think I have already 
answered the gentleman's question in a former 
portion of my remarks, but for his satisfac- 
tion I will endeavor to answer it again. I say 
that it might be a ground of impeachment in 
this way: if he should use that power for cor- 
rupt purposes he would undoubtedly be liable 
to impeachment, and Congress would have the 
right to inquire into the motives and objects of 
the President in rescinding such on order, and 
if it should appear that he rescinded such order 
for corrupt purposes Congress would not only 
have the power to impeach him, but ought to 
impeach him. The President has no right to 
exercise even constitutional powers for corrupt 
ends. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. The gentleman will per- 
mit me to ask him one further question. The 
President takes an oath to support the Consti- 
tution of the United States ; we take a similar 
oath. Have we the right under the solemnity 
of our oaths to pass a bill which overrides the 
Constitution and attempts to deprive the Pres- 
ident of the power which he constitutionally 
possesses? 

Mr. INGERSOLL. I answer that we have 
not the power to pass a bill which overrides 
the Constitution and attempts to deprive the 
President of the power which he constitutionally 
possesses ; but such is not the case in the bill 
before us. The gentleman assumes that the 
bill under consideration "overrides the Con- 
stitution," but his assumption in my opinion 
is unfounded. If he refers to any other bill it 
will be time enough to answer it when such bill 
is under consideration. This bill I hold to be 
strictly within the constitutional powers of 
Congress. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. The point which I make 
is this : the gentleman admits that the Presi- 
dent, by virtue of the Constitution, is Com- 
mander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. 

Mr. INGERSOLL. That is true. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. That being conceded, I 
ask the gentleman whether Congress has the 
right to deprive the President of his power as 
Commander-in-Chief and place it in the hands 
of some one else? 

Mr. INGERSOLL. The gentleman will 



12 



permit me to say that he is mistaken if he 
understands this bill as attempting any such 
thing. This bill leaves the power of the Pres- 
ident just where the Constitution leaves it. It 
neither diminishes nor augments it. It simply 
directs the General of the Army to assign to 
the command of certain districts created by 
the bill such generals as he may in his dis- 
cretion select, and this does not interfere with 
the powers of the President as Commander-in- 
Chief of the Army and Navy. 

The character of this legislation is not new. 
The same tiling was done many times before, 
and its constitutionality was never questioned 
until now. By an act of Congress the office 
of Provost Marshal General Jvas created, and 
the duties of that officer were specified in the 
act. By acts of Congress officers of the Army 
and Navy by name have been assigned to 
special duty heretofore, and we propose to do 
nothing more than that by this bill. 

Mr. Speaker, I will now return to the con- 
sideration of the subject, the discussion of 
which I had commenced when I was inter- 
rupted by the gentleman from Kentucky. I 
Was speaking in reference to the impeachment 
of the President and the necessity of determin- 
ing without unnecessary delay as to whether 
the President has been guilty of any crimes or 
misdemeanors for which he should be im- 
peached and removed ("nun his high office. If 
he i- iii sent ii is due to him and to the coun- 
try that the agitation of this question should 
. for it must be apparent to all that while 

this question remains undetermined the coun- 
try i- necessarily agitated on this subject, the 
commercial and financial interests of the couri- 

trv are disturbed by it, and the prosperity of 

the country is affected seriously, and the 
sooner the question is settled the better for all 
parties and interests concerned. 

I ■ ri rnai h I intend no reflection upon 
the honorable committee that has charge of 
thi abject : but thai this inquiry ought to b • 

Once and without delay is most evi- 
dent, rf the President has been guilty of 
for which he should be impeached, let us not 
shrink from tin- responsibility which properly 
belongs to as. Ifhe la guiltless he should no! 
be unnecessarily haunted with the specter of 
Impeachment If he ii to be tried, and when 



tried found guiltless, we must then submit, to 
the rule of the President to the end of his con- 
stitutional term and suffer him to pursue his 
./< vious way. If he is to remain in that office 
for the coming two years we might as well 
abandon the question of the reconstruction of 
the States lately in rebellion by legislative en- 
actment, and at onco proceed to fortify ourselves 
against any further encroachments on the part 
of the Executive, and content ourselves with 
such legislation as shall be necessary to pre- 
vent the Representatives from the President's 
"pocket States" from occupying seats on this 
floor until after another presidential election 
shall have given us a President true to liberty, 
true to justice, true to the best interests of the ^ 
whole country. Then harmony will be restored » 
between the executive and the legislative depart- 
ments of the Government, then the work of 
reconstruction can again be resumed and pros- 
ecuted to a speedy restoration of these States 
upon a basis in accordance with the principles 
of the Constitution. We can certainly endure 
the present condition of things if the southern 
States can. It is of more importance to them 
to have representation than it is to us that they 
should have it. 

If they prefer to continue in tlK'ir obstinacy 
rather than yield to the just ami humane de- 
sires of Congress, I say compel them to bear 
their equal share of the burdens of the Govern- 
ment and withhold from them the blessings 
which result from a condition of restoration to 

the Union and to representation in Congress 

until such time as they are willing to do justice. 

Let the responsibility rest with them, it will not 
belong to us. They have rejected the consti- 
tutional amendment proposed at the hurt ses- 
sion of G * ■■:■' i i: perhaps they will like this 

measure better. 

The gentleman from Ohio. [Mr. I.r Bi.ovn.] 

in his remarks to-day, seemed to be somewhat 
excited over an anticipated war if we passed 

this bill. I desire to ask the gentleman where 

• hit - ildien to make war upon 
the < Government and the Congress of the United 

States? IOU "ill hardly find them in the rebol 
States. They have had enough of war ; they 

have been thoroughly whipped, and do not flat- 

■ he whipped again, You will not get 

them from the loyal people of the northern or 



13 



southern States. If you get any at all you may 
drum up a few recruits from the Democratic 
ranks, but in the present weak and shattered 
condition of that party you would hardly be able 
to raise a very formidable army, and I tell the 
gentleman if the party decreases in the same 
ratio in the coming year as it has in the last, 
the whole party together would not form a re- 
spectable corps oV arm€e. 

A Member. How about the bread-and-but- 
ter brigade? w 

Mr. INGERSOLL. Pardon me ; I did not 
think of that heroic and patriotic band, but I 
do not apprehend much danger from that source; 
it would be a bloodless conflict ; we would have 
no use either for the sword or the musket ; all 
that would be necessary to make a conquest 
over them would be found in the commissary 
department. Order out the bread and butter 
and peace would be restored. 

I ask the gentleman, who is going to com- 
mand your army in case you make war upon 
the Government? Do you believe that Gen- 
erals Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, or 
Howard will command and lead your armies 
against Congress and the loyal people of the 
United States? Are they going to make war 
upon those who have been their friends through- 
out the long and bloody struggle for the sup- 
pression of the rebellion? Are they going to 
make war upon those without whose aid they 
would not now wear upon their brows the re- 
splendent laurels of victory which they won ? 
You will find no Grant, no Sherman, no Sheri- 
dan, no Thomas, no Howard, to command you, 
except to command you to disperse. You will 
not find one heroic soldier who fought to main- 
tain the honor of his country' s flag, for the pres- 
ervation of his country's life, for the suppres- 
sion of the rebellion, for the destruction of 
slavery, that will join your army. No, not 
one. 

For one I anticipate no war, and if the Pres- 
ident would only lend his ready cooperation to 
the measures matured and passed by Congress 
for the restoration of permanent peace the 
most timorous would not even dream of war, 
knowing that if such was the fact, harmony 
and prosperity would be restored without de- 
lay. The people of the South would not for 
a moment stand in the way of congressional 



reconstruction but for the encouragement held 
out to them under the presidential policy. 
Under that policy they see in anticipation 
restoration to power — yea, augmented power, 
more power than they had previous to their 
rebellion. Under the reconstruction policy of 
Congress they see a diminution of their power 
unless they enlarge their ideas of justice, lib- 
erty, and the rights of man. Should they do 
this, then their political power would be equal 
to ours in the ratio of their population. But 
until they consent to stand upon the platform 
we stand upon, and in their fundamental laws 
grant liberty and equality to all men, they will 
find the heroic people of the North at the bal- 
lot-box and here in Congress battling them in 
the future as they have in the past. 

We have laid aside the musket and we hope 
to be able to complete our work with the bal- 
lot. We must gather the fruits of our victo- 
ries. It has been so decreed by the people, 
and in this Government the people are supreme. 
Let us hear no more of a war upon the loyal 
people and their Representatives. 

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Le Blond] 
and his colleague [Mr. Finck] denounced 
with considerable vehemence the action of the 
majority here as tending to monarchy ; that we 
favored despotism ; that we ignore the rights 
of the southern people ; that we are going to 
fasten upon them governments unsupportable 
by reason of their tyranny. 

How, Mr. Speaker, can any man without 
blushing make the charge against the Repub- 
lican Union party that it is despotic ; that it is 
attempting to destroy the liberties of the peo- 
ple ; that it is seeking to establish monarchy 
or an oligarchy ; that it is seeking to place the 
powers of the Government in the hands of the 
few to the exclusion of the many ? 

Sir, I have but to point with becoming pride 
to the record of the Republican party to refute 
this charge. Has it not enlarged and extended 
the area of liberty? Has it not taken by the 
hand the lowly, the poor, the oppressed, and 
the downtrodden and lifted them up to a polit- ' 
ical level with itself? Has it not, in opposi- 
tion to the falsely called Democratic party, 
stricken the corroding shackles from four mil- 
lion slaves, which the hand of tyranny and 
despotism fastened upon them, and which the 



14 



Democratic party kept upon them during three 
generations ? The shackles and that party are 
going to dust together. 

This, sir, is the fruit gathered from the seed 
planted by the old abolition party many years 
ago in the free soil of the North. Slavery and 
oligarchy — the worst features of despotism — 
were cherished and strengthened by the party 
calling itself Democratic. When the abolition 
party came into power it struck a giant blow, 
and Moloch and his worshipers fell to rise no 
more. 

To whom are we indebted for the repeal of 
the odious fugitive slave law? To the Repub- 
lican party that is in power to-day. In its hatred 
of despotism it struck that hideous law out of 
existence. To whom is the world indebted for 
the grand lessons of liberty and equal justice 
that have been taught and enforced within the 
past few years? To the abolition party. To 
whom are the colored people of this District 
indebted for the recognition of their manhood 
and their rights as citizens? To that same 
Abolition- Republican party in Congress here. 
Standing loyal and true to its professions it was 
the first party to give the country an illustra- 
tion of the principles it professed in favor of 
universal liberty. It voted for the abolition of 
slavery at the seat of your Government and 
carried it over your opposition. It conferred 
throughout the length and breadth of this land 
the character and rights of citizens upon the 
emancipated blacks in the face of the opposi- 
tion of }'our party and over the veto of your 
President 1'ecognizing the right of the black 
man to liberty it placed in his hands the ballot 
to protect thai liberty. 

I roice is again heard in opposition to the 

admission of new States with the word " white" 

in their constitutions. It is against the recog- 
nition of the inequality of man ; and here again 
your party is on the side of despotism and 
oligarchy. The Republican party has ever 
been the party "f liberty, of equality, and 
justice. Tliut party ifl BOW most gloriously ful- 
filling the bopet of the good men who fonnded 
and established this Republic by carrying into 



practical effect the immutable principle of the 
Declaration of Independence, "that all men 
are created equal." For the first time in the 
history of the Government has this divine prin- 
ciple been recognized by its law-making power 
and carried into execution. Instead of war 
the day of jubilee is coming, and this Repub- 
lican party is going to usher it in. Are we in 
favor of monarchy and despotism? Are you 
afraid that the Republican Union party will 
fasten upon any portion of the people the 
chains of slavery or any form of despotic gov- 
ernment? 

Have we not in the face of the fiercest oppo» 
sition enlarged the area of freedom and made 
it coextensive with theJiepublic itself? The 
Republican party has done all this and more ; 
all for the amelioration and elevation of man- 
kind. Language fails me to portray its glori- 
ous deeds in behalf of liberty and justice. I 
am proud of that party. It has done more to 
aggrandize free institutions than any and all 
other parties that ever existed on the face of 
the earth. A portion of its fame belongs to 
me. It will descend to my children. The 
influence of its glorious deeds are not confined 
alone to the limits of our own country. It has 
extended across the seas, and is to-day under- 
mining and threatening with destruction the 
monarchies and despotisms of the Old World. 
It questions the divine right of kings and their 
thrones are less secure, and its influence will 
not cease to be felt and move the hearts of men 
until the world is redeemed from the thralldom 
of despotism. 

Now, sir, with that Sublime record of the past 
do you suppose it possible for the Republican 
party to do an act inconsistent with that record, 
an act that will dim the luster of its immortal 
fame? No, sir, never. We are making a grand 
advance. Clothed in the panoply of justice, 
supported by the unconquerable will .if a lib- 
erty-loving pi ople, we are ttwtnctble. Tin' day 
is coming, it is not far distant, when justice will 
be satisfied and the blessings of liberty secured 

to all. and then a grand and majestic Republic 
will have risen upon the ruins of the present. 



\ 



-^ 



I 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 744 480 A £ 



pH8J 



